Friday, March 18, 2011

I promised an explanation as to why I stand up (and take a lot of heat) for not promoting certain missions and beliefs. Here it is:

In this world, we have a many, many problems and we need many solutions to fix them. We have a great deal of evil and crime and sad situations that we need to ameliorate. The question that must be answered, and answered rationally and without deep emotions influencing our determinations is "How?" And "How much of our resources?"

Resources are not unlimited. We have only so much money and manpower. Let me use an example in the health realm. People often say we should do everything possible to save the life of a human being. Well, this is certainly a fine sentiment, but is it rational? Suppose a psychopathic, alcoholic, drug-using sixty-year-old serial rapist with a life sentence has a liver that is failing. Should we do everything possible to get him another liver? Most people would think our resources shouldn't be wasted that way when there are so many children and decent adults needing one. This is probably a fairly easy example.

Now, it gets harder. What if this were a very loved family man who never drank or used drugs, but, he has so many other systemic problems that, while a new liver might give him another few months, he is going to die anyway from all the other problems. Now, we feel really bad but we might, with a bit of guilt, say the resources we have should be spent on those who have a better chance of survival.

What about Japan and the earthquake and tsunami victims? When do you call off a search? We often see people become very upset when the search efforts stop. We hear, "What if there is still someone alive under the rubble?" Well, there might be and one always hopes that this isn't true (and maybe one has nightmares forever thinking there was some poor soul still trapped waiting for the rescue that never came). But, we can't search forever. Money and manpower runs out and, at some point, we have to use what we have in a more productive way.

The same is true for criminal investigation. Here I am going to use what I am calling the 99.9% rule (although the exact number is not the point; 99.8%, 97.7%, 99.6%, 99.5%...somewhere up there). If there is one out of a thousand or two out of a thousand that might be the victim of some rare kind of crime, one cannot spend the money and manpower in incredible quantities on the off chance that this is what happened to the victim. Nor should we spend huge amounts of money on solving a problem that is only a minute part of the entire problem (not that we cannot address it, but we just shouldn't have it take over a large part of our strategy or allocation of resources).

Why do we know the names -, Jaycee Dugard, Elizabeth Smart, Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby -oh, and Colleen Stan ("the girl in the box" as most actually remember her) so well? Because these are anomalies. Almost all of children and adults abducted by sex predators are dead within an hour; a few last a day or two, and a very, very, very few are found alive years later. When this happens, we are stunned and thrilled. I had a huge grin on my face when I heard Elizabeth Smart was alive - in spite of the fact I said on television she was likely dead. Wow! Amazing! It was a great moment but it also signified a bad turn of thinking for parents and victim support groups. It has become the fashion now to believe everyone is alive until proven otherwise and to pressure detectives to search every nook and cranny of the world, track down every sighting and tip, to leave no stone unturned, just in case, just in case that missing abducted person is alive. If one stops looking or spending a lot of money and time on the search, great anger erupts at law enforcement and any other person who says the victim is likely dead and the focus should be on body recovery and finding the perpetrator.

In a perfect world, we would have unlimited resources. If this were true, I would say split the money and manpower in half and one half look for a body and the killer and the other half keep looking for a living victim. But this is the real world and money and manpower is in short supply. One must decide how to allocate the resources that are available. And the method is to follow that 99.9% rule. If all the evidence points to the missing person as being dead, one must focus on body recovery and finding the killer and getting him off the street. The longer it takes to find the body, the less evidence will exist for conviction. The longer it takes to find the killer the less evidence will exist to convict him. If we divert the money and manpower needed to get this evidence, we may not get the killer and then there is a murderer still on the streets who will commit another crime and another innocent person will die. If we spend all our time and money chasing leads that are likely to be worthless, we decrease our chances of catching the killer and we have to then live with the fact we helped create an opportunity for him to kill again. This is wrong.

It also should be noted that if one is following the evidence trail, it doesn't matter if the victim is alive or dead; we need to get the perpetrator as quickly as possible anyway (so he can be convicted and the public is safer). If it happens when one gets to the property of the abductor that the victim is still alive, then, hurray! We are incredibly happy!

The same is true for juveniles and adults in prostitution settings. If a juvenile goes missing and ends up working for a pimp, the investigation should lead one to that endangered juvenile whether the juvenile was abducted or ran away or willingly decided to become a prostitute because she was attracted to the life that was presented (as fun and exciting) or wanted the money she thought she could earn. Even an adult who ends up in prostitution for whatever reason, if she goes missing or appears to be held hostage by someone, the investigation should work to find them or free them, regardless of why she ended up in the situation. If a crime was committed or being committed, law enforcement should be working on it.

Now, having said that, the question comes down to how we spend our time and money and manpower pursuing leads. Again, I say follow the evidence at all times. If the evidence does not point to certain things, the 99.9% rule applies: you can't overfocus on something that is extremely unlikely and no evidence points in that direction because 999 out of 1000 times, you will be wasting resources looking in all the wrong places.

For example, almost all young boys abducted off the street are abducted by lone sex predators who are not part of any organized sex ring. Johnny Gosch, the little newspaper boy who disappeared a couple of decades ago, is likely dead and buried on nearby farmland. The chances of him being alive today and still the captive of a sex ring are extremely remote; no evidence points that direction (and the bizarre stories from the mother and convicted felons and ethically-questionable private investigators do not count as credible evidence). Therefore, 99.9% of investigative efforts should be trying to locate Johnny's body and evidence to convict his killer.

The same is true for Kyron Horman. All evidence points back to a person he knows and was the last person to be seen with him. It is a waste of resources to investigate every speculation that Kyron is alive and being held as a sex slave. Follow the evidence trail.

Now, IF that trail led to some strange anomaly - the 99.9% anomaly - and that victim was seen being abducted in the vicinity of a sex ring that was just found to be setting up operations in a particular area, then by all means, check out that lead! In that case, there would be a reason to consider it a possibility. Also, the rule or the percentage can change if there is a change of culture or economics. The enslaving of Asian women in sex rings DOES exist in the United States and if I got a call from a worried mother in China who said she thinks her daughter is being kept captive in New York City, I would consider that not as much as an anomaly because there is evidence that there are quite a number of female Asian immigrants who are experiencing this.

As to public awareness of problems and how we perceive the issues of the sex trade and how we allot resources to combat the problem of prostitution in general and how we save people from prostitution and rescue them from it, this is another 99.9% rule worth looking at.

As it stands now in America, very, very, few juveniles or adults are abducted off the street and forced into prostitution. Even some of the stories of this may be flawed (I am not saying this one or that one; just we should be aware that sometimes we are not hearing the complete truth) in that the victim may not want to admit to the circumstances leading up to the captivity; she/he may be embarrassed that they wanted to party, or wanted to do drugs, or even wanted to make a buck through selling of their bodies. They may have willingly gone with the perps and even willingly participated in the acts and then things went seriously wrong. What started as consensual behavior escalates into nonconsensual crimes and now the individual needs to be saved from whomever is abusing them.

The reason this happens is the quality of human beings, if one can call them that, one can get hooked up with. A pimp may start out as a "boyfriend:" a young woman or teen is new in the big city and "Bobby" helps her out with a place to stay and some money. She is so grateful and he seduces her. She now is his girlfriend. Eventually, he suggests she could make some money through sex and she reluctantly tries it to please him and because she has no money to live on. Eventually, his real character comes out and she finds that he gets the bulk of her income and forces her to sleep on a mattress in a room with his other "girlfriends." She is given drugs to ease the feelings of degradation and soon she is a drug addict. Bobby beats her when she questions him and now she is terrified of his anger as well. Could she leave? Possibly. She might be able to leave town and he wouldn't follow her but she might be afraid she can't get drugs or she won't have a place to live or she may still "love" him. It is complicated and she needs help to get out of there. Bobby, the lowlife pimp, needs to be put in prison for the next decade or two.

Some girls also go into prostitution because they simply want to. And they do get a lot of what they were looking for, especially girls on the high end of the spectrum; bottle girls, call girls, and escorts. They can make big money and buy fancy clothes and hang out with the rich and famous and party hardy. Some don't have quite that level of a lifestyle but they still like the fast life. A good portion of these girls do not have pimps and they are not under threat of any kind. There are other who do have pimps/"boyfriends" who run them around and live with them; it is not as bad a life as the streets, but the fact there is a creepy guy of any sort in the picture raises the level of danger. Sometimes a girl at this level will get killed by her pimp/"boyfriend" in a domestic matter. He didn't kill her over prostitution but for the same reasons other husbands and boyfriends kill their women: "She isn't going to leave me or defy me." It is a matter of power and control. For girls in prostitution, the chance they are going to get a man with power and control issues is substantially higher than those not in the life.

So, how do we help victims of prostitution? We focus on preventing children from running away from home. We help runaways before they get into prostitution. We try to keep kids away from drugs and early sex experiences. We try to work with the community to protect our children from local scum and give them tools to work with for good lives. We work with parents and teach better parenting. We try to educate young men and women to stay far away from any form of prostitution: street prostitution, massage, parlors, strip joints, go-go dancing, escort services, bottle services, call services, adult films, adult services like Craigs List, any sort of sex for money kind of stuff....and educate them to stay away from drugs and careless sexual activities. And we fund law enforcement and support laws that put pimps and others running the sex trade in prison. We also need to get rid of the concept some believe that "prostitution is a victimless crime."

THIS is where our money and efforts should go. We need to face the fact that most everyone in prostitution DID NOT get abducted by strangers into the life. Hyping "stranger abduction by sex traffickers" as a big problem in the United States is wrongheaded and takes the focus off of how pimps and other sex industry handlers get their workers and it takes the focus off of how victims ended up there. We need to put our money and manpower into what constitutes 99,9% of the problem and not the few aberrations that exist.

This is what will save lives and because I want to save lives, I am going to keep speaking up to do so.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

This was just posted on my Facebook page:

"Pat Brown you ought to be ASHAMED of yourself for announcing on Nancy Grace's show that the people who run child sex rings do not "go around kidnapping people" and that they have "plenty of runaways" to choose from. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!! You know damn well this is FALSE and that thousands of men, women and children are KIDNAPPED and sold into sex slavery and the human trafficking industry every single year. You lost ALL credibility with me with that one comment."

This isn't the first time I have ticked someone off by stating that women and children are rarely, very rarely, ever kidnapped, if ever, into sex slavery rings in the United States. Whenever I speak on the subject, I get angry emails from women who believe I am ignoring a horrible crime against women and from mothers of missing daughters who believe their daughters were abducted into such a ring and are still alive.

But, the truth is, there is hardly any instance of this kind of crime in this country. Are there big sex rings? Yes, but they are made up of immigrant women who paid a lot of money for a US passport and then were forced into the sex trade; the passport is held from them until they can "earn" it back. Other than that, most prostitution in the United States is comprised of willing adults (at least they were willing when they entered the profession) and coerced teens and adults who were homeless, unemployed, and had drug or alcohol issues (some get into prostitution for the money and then get into drugs to deal with the life). Some children are lured by neighborhood pedophiles into sex acts through pornography, alcohol, and drugs (or terrorized into providing what the pedophile wants) and one pedophile or a group of pedophiles can have a "sex ring" of kids under their control. Sometimes a child is pimped out by his or her own parents, for money or for perverse pleasure.

What does NOT happen is that children and women are kidnapped off the streets and kept in captivity by some professional sex ring where they stay under lock and key for years. The few who are held captive for sex are in the hands of sex predators for their own personal use.

There is a reason parents of missing women want to believe there are sex rings out there; if their daughter were to be in one, she would still be alive. This gives hope to a grieving parent. Sex rings are a convenient black hole for children and adults to fall into and stay alive forever in the minds of their loved ones. Another reason for this belief is that some parents do not want to admit their daughters willingly chose to work in prostitution. They want to believe they were forced into it by brute force (and not through drugs or coercion). Rarely is this true.

One big myth is that of the desire for blonde girls is so big, that they must be kidnapped: Natalie Holloway and Madeleine McCann, for example. The truth of the matter is that blond girls can be enticed with money or promises of exotic locations and lifestyles. I remember I was in California and answered an ad that turned out to be for "hostesses" in Japan. When I realized it was really prostitution, I ran the other way. I am sure some blondes went, and, that could turn out to be a bad situation over there with clubs run by the Yakuza. Read the book, Some Girls; My Life in a Harem by Jillian Lauren, and one can see blonde girls are easier to hire, not steal. And remember Maddie McCann who is thought to be a stolen blonde child? And they thought they saw her in Morocco? Turned out to be a Moroccan blonde child, so if you wanted a blonde kid, there are lots of poor ones available that don't need to be abducted out of Portugal.

Why do I want people to know the truth? Because knowing our children are choosing to go into prostitution might help us focus on preventing them from doing so, saving their lives and keeping them from suffering years of degradation and misery. Also, parents need to be vigilant that their children aren't being targeted by local pedophiles and drawn into their world; parents need to parent and make sure their children don't hang around questionable relatives, youth "leaders, and neighbors. The truth can also focus a missing person investigation in the right direction. It is a shame to waste money on foolish avenues. Money needs to be spent properly in order to help the most victims of crime that we can.

I also get hate mail from people angry say when I state a missing person is likely dead and not in a sex ring, that I crush hope and discourage a search for the person. Are they right? Why would I come out and say this? Because the truth is important. One, all this pretending gives unreasonable false hope to people who often then spend a fortune on private investigators who will soak them for everything they have following false lead after false lead. Secondly, the focus should be on recovering the body so we can find the perpetrator and put him away before he abducts another child or adult and rapes and murders them as well.

The truth may not be as pleasing as an illusion, but it saves lives and keeps money and manpower from being wasted on wrongheaded thinking. We cannot make things better if we encourage a belief in myths just to make us or others feel better.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

I am going to stick my neck out one more time on the Amy Henslee/Tonya Howarth case because, while all the evidence isn't in and won't be until the trial of Junior Lee Beebe, Jr, there is enough now that I feel comfortable proposing the theory that makes the most sense to me. And, I remind people once again, this is a theory, not a set of truths, and not an assignment of guilt. Theories are always in progress as one gathers more evidence. Even in "real" profiling - meaning I am working with a police department and have access to everything they do, theories are always in flux and this includes the ones the police develop. It is a process of analysis and a process of understanding, a process of uncovering the truth. It takes time and sometimes the truth never really comes out. Sometimes what people think is the truth turns out to be wrong. We can only do our best to analyze as objectively as we can and be willing to modify our theories as new information warrants changes. Everything here is an opinion - theories are opinions, no matter how scientific they are - nothing here is a legal determination. The court will be the final judge as to whether Junior Beebe is guilty or innocent and which crimes he will be convicted of, if any.

When Beebe was arrested, I was asked by The CBS Early Show if I thought he murdered both women, if he acted alone, and what the motive would be. Quite frankly, while I believed Beebe was there at the crime scene and killed at least Tonya for some reason, I had difficulty with any motive for Beebe murdering Amy. And the evidence (so far), indicates Amy was the target of the crime; she was shot face to face while Tonya was shot either running away or face down on the ground. If Tonya was shot first , Amy would been shot as she was trying to escape; the inner thigh wound and point blank chest wound would not likely be the result of the next two rounds.

Interestingly, Junior Lee Beebe Jr's confession and description of how the crime went down, matches the wounds on the body. Michigan State Police Detective Sgt. Diane Oppenheim testified to what Beebe told her and this was before he lawyered up and the autopsy came out. Although one can argue he had a few days to concoct a story that would match the evidence, the fact is the story does make sense except for the claim of self-defense; the homicide of Tonya Howarth would be an act of rage over the murder of Amy.

Since Amy would be the target of the crime, there is only one likely motive: jealousy. Jealousy on the part of Tonya or jealousy on the part of James Henslee. Now, herein lies a prime example as to why not being entirely truthful (or being deceptive) can make one a person of interest. James Henslee withheld information from law enforcement concerning the possible whereabouts of his wife and he may have not been truthful about what he believed or knew was going on with Amy. Now that I have a better timeline and better autopsy information, I believe I can rule out James Henslee as having any participation in the homicides of Amy and Tonya although I do believe he may have impeded the investigation. I will explain why.

In spite of some folks claiming Amy could have been threatened or abducted by Beebe, I believe the neighborhood witness who said she saw a woman who looked like Amy get into the car willingly is correct. I do not believe she was afraid of Beebe because she would have told James this. Also, no one has been saying that the four - James, Amy, BJ, and Tonya - had any falling out and refused to be around each other.

If Amy got into the truck willingly, she wanted to go with Beebe. If she did not call James before she went, she did not want him to know. When James found out Amy went with Beebe, red flags must have gone up for him. For her to do this behind his back suggests one of few things: sex or drugs or boredom, or a combination of these. Considering Amy was now staying at home, had no cell phone, and no house keys, and James was calling five or six times a day, I believe James was either a controlling husband or a worried one (or both).

So, when James found out where Amy had gone that Monday morning just about 10:45, he may well have been jealous or worried enough to drive straight over to Beebe's and see what was going on. And I think he did do that after he made his phone call to Beebe. I believe this likely this took place during the time that he said he was "cruising" around town.

James may have been jealous and this could be a motive or him to race over, blast in the door, grab the shotgun and kill his wife in a rage. Or he could have raced over and found his wife there but making a surprise present for him with the help of his cousin. But, there is a credible reason why James never actually showed up at the crime scene and this reason would take him off the person-of-interest list; Amy and Tonya were likely dead by the time James found out where his wife went.

Again, I believe Beebe was telling a basic truth when he said he picked up Amy and they were going to spend a little time together and then he was going to get her home before the 10 AM phone call came in from her husband. But before that hour arrived, Tonya was dropped off by Beebe's mother (assuming evidence doesn't show up that disproves this) by , found them together, and all hell broke loose.

There is further evidence that Beebe is telling the truth that Tonya went at Amy. Both women had some scrapes and bruises, the kind of thing a scuffle between two women would engender. They did not have contusions, smashed noses, and lacerations of the sort they would have gotten if a crazed psychopath went off on them. A struggle between the two women would cause minor injuries and the shot to the inner thigh of Amy likely the result of a gun that went off without any aiming involved. The second shot killing Amy would likely cause Beebe to be freaking out over her and give Tonya time to reload if it were a double barrel shotgun. Once he finds she is no longer alive, his attention would turn to Tonya, especially if she did say, "You're next!" However, if it was a pump shotgun (and it appears to be from the video I paused) all four shots could be shot in a row without reloading. Beebe says he was able to grab the gun when it jammed.

It makes more sense that Tonya might be the one who shot Amy if the shotgun was a pump. It is more likely for a novice or a woman who has less strength to short shuck a shotgun causing it to jam.

In their struggle for the gun, it is not unlikely that Beebe could have pulled the gun from her hands and slammed the butt of it into her kneecap, causing her to collapse to the floor.

Alternatively, he could have nailed her knee with a low martial arts sidekick with the same result. Once she hit the floor, he would pull the trigger two times quickly, aiming the barrel at the back of her head, killing Tonya instantly. There is blood in the doorway which makes sense. If Tonya charged in, she would have left the door open and when she fell to the floor it would be likely her head was in that location.

A slightly different scenario is also possible. Tonya could have been aiming at Beebe with the shotgun and Amy intervened and ended up getting shot in the struggle. Beebe could have pulled the shotgun from Tonya's hands, slammed the butt on her knee, knocking her to the ground, reloaded the gun himself, and fired the two shots into her head.

So, now we have Beebe sitting there wondering what the hell he is supposed to do now. He knows James is going to call at 10 AM as soon as Amy doesn't answer the phone. Sure enough, an hour later, the phone call comes in and James asks not if he knows where Amy is but if he came by the house. Beebe knows someone saw him pull up. So he admits he came by to borrow something but, when he knocked, Amy didn't answer.

Now, it only makes sense that James knew from the neighbor that Amy got in the truck (at this point Beebe doesn't know the neighbor also saw a girl get in the vehicle). Wouldn't he challenged Beebe? Wouldn't James say, "Wait a minute, my neighbor says she saw Amy get in the car." Remember how there was talk that the neighbor, being elderly, might have vision problems? I am sure Beebe said something like, "The neighbor must have been mistaken; she probably is blind as a bat."

James has to know Beebe is lying, but he probably wouldn't think it is because Beebe had two dead women in his trailer and didn't know what to do about it. Logically, James would hang up and drive over to Beebe's. Now, I have heard that Beebe left the property within that next hour (not a proven fact, but information from an anonymous source); he had a prior commitment and if he was trying to keep what happened a secret, he would have to pretend everything was normal. He would lock up the trailer and head out. If James arrived after he left, he would not find him or his wife there. He could have thought she went off with Beebe or with Tonya and, cross his fingers, she would be back by 3 PM with some explanation that he could accept. I don't think he saw the blood in the snow. I simply think he didn't see Beebe's truck at the front of the lot and so he would have gone home.

Now, 3 PM comes, his sons arrive home, and still no Amy. He knows something is strange, as he said on the 911 call, but I don't think he knows what exactly. He knows Amy left with Beebe and now he doesn't know where Amy and Beebe are or if they are still together, but he knows something is amiss. He calls the police but he does not tell the whole truth. I really don't think he wanted to call the police; I think he did so halfheartedly because he knew this is what he should do as a good husband, especially one whose wife is not involved in any questionable activities. He doesn't tell the police about Beebe and any of his suspicions; I believe he hoped Amy would eventually turn up with some good excuse and he wouldn't have to confront any unpleasant realities.

Unfortunately, Amy is truly missing. I question whether James ever told the police about Beebe, about Amy going with him, about Beebe telling him Tonya was also missing. From what I have read so far, it seems the police learned about Beebe from another source and they didn't learn about Tonya until they found her body buried alongside Amy's. At this point, I believe James simply said as little as possible, choosing not to find out the truth. If other family members hadn't brought in the search dogs (this is what I was told by an anonymous source) and the police hadn't found out about Beebe from someone other than James, it is possible the graves of Amy and Tonya would never have been found. Perhaps, this would have been preferable to James. Having a missing wife is very difficult but dealing with painful issues sometimes seems worse and it is often a human trait to simply shut down and not confront them. In a way, it may be that Beebe and James were doing the same thing from opposite sides of the crime. Both were deceptive and not forthcoming in order to protect themselves from added pain.

Many think Amy could not have been having an affair with Beebe; that he is using the affair as a lie to give Tonya a motive to commit murder. I tend to believe his statement is truthful. Beebe would be far better off NOT saying such a thing. It makes him look really bad to the community and a jury; it means he did his cousin wrong. He could look more innocent and decent if he just said he was hanging out with Amy watching videos and Tonya got it all wrong, that crazy, jealous paranoid woman.

Jame was asked in an interview what he would say to Beebe and he responded, "I would ask him what the hell is wrong with him?" That struck me strange the first time I heard it because it was not what one would expect someone to say to a person who had just brutally murdered his wife. But, if James actually believes himself that Beebe's has merit and Tonya did catch him him with Amy, then the statement makes sense. James would be terribly hurt and disgusted that his own cousin would go behind his back to make time with his wife. He would know Beebe didn't kill his wife but his bad behaviors pushed Tonya over the edge and put his wife in harm's way. As James said numerous times, Amy needed to be home where she would be safe.

If James really does believe Beebe's story - in his heart if not in his head - this would explain some of his odd interviews where he talked about Amy in glowing terms but did not show a lot of appropriate emotion. He wanted to remember his "perfect wife" and forget that maybe some of her own choices and behavior led her to that fateful day (and this is not about blaming the victim but understanding how crimes end up occurring). He may want to create a less painful memory to live with. I can understand this but, if it turns out as I believe it will that there is more to this story than many want to believe (Beebe = pure evil, James and Amy = pure goodness) , then he is going to have to deal with that when the defense presents its case in court.

And the most important issue they are going to address is why Amy went willingly with Junior Lee Beebe, Jr.

Monday, March 7, 2011

I want to propose a scenario (NOT FACTS) just to show how difficult some situations can be and how things are not always black and white.

Suppose, just SUPPOSE, that Junior Lee Beebe, Jr picked up Amy Henslee and they went back to hang in his trailer, for whatever reasons. Suppose they are sitting there watching a video and in comes Tonya Howarth (NOT A FACT) and, for whatever reasons - jealousy, mental disorder, paranoia, etc) she freaks out and thinks something is going on and grabs the shotgun and shoots Amy. Beebe, horrified, jumps up and wrenches the shotgun from her grasp. Tonya tells him she is going to call the police and tell them Beebe shot Amy. Enraged over the killing of Amy and scared the police will believe Tonya, he pulls the trigger and kills Tonya. Or, suppose that in seeing Amy lying there dead, he just sees red and pulls the trigger and kills Tonya.

Now, he has two dead women in his trailer. He killed one of them and not in self-defense, but in rage or fear. He buries the women and he can escape from the whole situation. Perhaps, his mind is clouded by drugs or terror at the time and he isn't making the smartest or most honorable decision.

Once the police arrest him, he tells the story fairly accurately (NOT A FACT) but claims self-defense instead of just saying he shot Tonya because he was furious or scared. He lies but he lies because he is trying to save himself from a life in prison, not because he murdered Amy.

IF this scenario were true (and I am not saying it is in any way), Junior Lee Beebe Jr would not come off as such an evil guy. A jury, if they believed he shot Tonya because Tonya shot Amy (for whatever reasons), might understand why someone would do this in the heat of the moment and see it as a crime of passion or temporary insanity.

What sentence would you give him IF this were true and what would YOU do if you found yourself in such a situation with two dead women in your trailer? I know some of you would say, even if you shot Tonya in a haze of anger or fear, that you would have called the police and hoped they would believe you. What if you thought they wouldn't? What if you had a bit of a not-so-perfect past and thought no one would believe you?

I am not justifying the killing of anyone. I am just trying to point out how things may not be quite as they seem and, if there are mitigating circumstances, Beebe may be wrong but not as nasty a creature as some think. If it turns out that he shot both women in cold blood, then he deserves the full penalty of the law, but, if he didn't, he deserves a sentence that matches the actual acts of wrongdoing.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

I have removed all previous posts on the murders of Henslee and Howarth due to physical threats and constant vicious comments. Any future comments posted on this blog concerning the Henslee/Howarth murder case will be removed if they contain anything but a civil discussion of the issues.

Since there has been a lot of uproar about the facts not being properly represented, I am going to review the "facts" of the case as I know them. If anyone can has any information that can correct any "facts," please do so. The purpose of this post is to establish what is true and what is not and what we simply do not have proof of. It is an opportunity for anyone in the know to make sure the correct facts are know. I will leave opinions about what these facts mean out of this post but you can feel free to share your thoughts in your comments.

Fact: Amy Henslee got into Beebe's truck.Fact: Amy Henslee did not call her husband, James, to inform him she was going with Beebe.Fact: We do not know when Tonya Howarth arrived at Beebe's or how she arrived.Fact: Amy Henslee and Tonya Howarth were killed.Fact: Amy Henslee and Tonya Howarth were shot with a shotgunFact: A shotgun was found at Junior Lee Beebe Jr's homeFact: We do not yet have scientific proof that the shotgun at Beebe's was the one used to kill Amy and Tonya.Fact: Beebe claims he did not shoot Amy.Fact: Beebe claims he shot Tonya in self-defenseFact: We do not actually know who shot Amy and we do not know who shot TonyaFact: Beebe claims he buried Amy and Tonya.Fact: We do not actually know who buried Amy and Tonya.Fact: James Henslee claims he called home at 10 AM and, thereafter, again and again until he decided to leave work around 10:30 and drive to the house. (We do not have phone records yet available for public review).Fact: James Henslee claims his neighbor described Beebe's truck and said a girl that looked like Amy got into the truck.Fact: James Henslee states he knew that it was Beebe who came to his house and this is why he then called Beebe around 11 AM.Fact: James Henslee calls 911 once and the police called him back later.Fact: James Henslee does not mention Beebe came to his house on either 911 call.Fact: James Henslee does not mention he called any of Amy's friends or the hospital on the first 911 call.Fact: James Henslee does not mention Amy's purse is at the home during either 911 call.Fact: James Henslee later claims that he talked with Beebe twice on the day Amy Henslee went missing, that he called Beebe at 11 AM and Beebe called him later in the afternoon.Fact: James Henslee claims Beebe told him at 11 AM that he had come to the house and Amy wasn't at home and he claims Beebe called him later in the day to ask if Amy had come home and to tell him Tonya was also missing.Fact: James claims that he went "cruising" around town looking for Amy.Fact: We do not know where James was from the time he left work until Amy's parents came to his home (if we could get a time when he talked with his neighbor or neighbors or if anyone saw him around town, this time line could be narrowed down).Fact: James claims he would take a polygraph.Fact: James did not take a polygraph.Fact: Junior Lee Beebe Jr, James Henslee, and Tonya Howarth all have criminal records. Amy Henslee does not.Fact: Junior Lee Beebe Jr and James Henslee were both arrested on the same day and charged with manufacture/delivery of marijuanaFact: Beebe was charged with double homicide and will stand trial.

All right. These are the only facts I can come up with right now. I have kept away from any observations of behaviors and stuck with absolute facts. Where I wrote "claims" simply means that this person made a specific statement which has not yet been verified or cannot be verified. It is not a negative or a positive. I am simply being careful not to assume anything without scientific evidence . IF any of you have information that proves absolutely that something did or did not happen, please comment and I will update the list as evidence comes in.

Join Our Mailing List!

Twitter

By Pat Brown

"Killing for Sport is the most valuable insight into the minds of serial killers that you will ever read. While other profilers tend to conceal the clear facts behind complex technical language and psychobabble. Pat Brown actually tells it like it is."